Bryan Kohberger: Pushing the Plea

追加: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Taking a look at the Idaho Good Ol' Boys Club and asking the question, is Anne Taylor fighting a rigged system or is she protecting it? Dr. Brent Turvey's revelations have me questioning this more than ever. It's something [clears throat] I've questioned from the get-go, but I think that Brent Turvey speaking out has a lot more people asking this question. Although she has a lot of defenders out there, not only from those who believe BK is guilty, but surprisingly from the not guilty or alt suspect camp as well. And to be fair, we've watched what many believed to be a biased court system systematically crush Anne over and over. Blocked from naming alternative perpetrators, denied her review of the IGG data, but I think we should look very closely at the fact that she's turning on her own expert.

[00:00:41]And in the past, we've actually seen her turn down outside help. This goes along with what Turvey was saying, that the defense experts were very siloed and they weren't working together. The very least I can say is that Turvey added fuel to my burning question, is Anne a victim of the good ol' boys club or is she playing her part in it? Today we're going to talk about the dirty mechanisms of the machine. I think, to answer whether Anne Taylor is playing a role in this system, we don't really have to guess, right? We can listen to the people inside of her own camp. Now, I don't take everything that Turvey says as gold, and in fact, I think he has a couple of theories that I disagree with.

[00:01:17]Importantly, I think that a part of why Turvey is being attacked is because he recently broke ranks. And you don't have to take every theory that he has as gold, but the fact that he chose to speak out regarding a defendant he considers factually innocent is highly relevant to me. Turvey put a lot of emphasis on something important and something that I think is a massive structural flaw, which is the fact that defense experts were completely separated. He stated that, nonetheless, they were all coming to the same conclusions, but they weren't allowed to be a part of the same loop, which I find super strange. Or maybe not, because again, we have seen Anne turn down outside help before. Remember the hearing right before the plea deal?

[00:01:58]Hippler actually asked Anne why she hadn't asked for other resources. This was something I'd been complaining about years ago was that she was saying that they were behind on time and they didn't have enough time for the massive discovery dump, yet she hadn't asked for any outside help. She hadn't asked for extra paralegals or someone to come on her team and help to parse all of that data. And in fact, when Hippler offered it, she was pretty standoffish about it.

[00:02:24]And I think this goes towards what Hervey was saying. And my question is why would a defense attorney intentionally fracture her own team in a capital murder trial? Is it because working as a single powerful unit threatens the ecosystem? It's important to remember that Anne Taylor is not an outsider in that ecosystem. I know whenever she first got put on the case, people were like, "Oh, she's helped someone appeal their death penalty case before, etc." But she isn't some Maverick attorney air-dropped from LA to fight a corrupt system. She's the chief public defender of Kootenai County.

[00:02:57]She's worked alongside these exact prosecutors, coroners, and judges for her entire career. Now, some people will argue that Anne Taylor is an outsider because she isn't from Latah County. But the idea of distance between those neighboring counties is an illusion.

[00:03:11]It's important to go back to the beginning, right? When this case began, there were only 13 public defenders in the entire state of Idaho qualified to sit as lead counsel on a death penalty case. Latah County didn't have a single one. Anne Taylor was quite literally the only legally viable, geographically close option. She didn't come through a lottery system meant to keep public defense assignments impartial. So, that whole system of death-qualified attorneys in Idaho is actually meant to guarantee competent representation for defendants. But when the pool is this small, it becomes an insular system that breeds the exact bias that it's supposed to eliminate. Now, they had a whole hearing about this and told everyone like, "Yeah, we decided that she's not a conflict attorney, but technically they didn't because I mean they did explain to Brian, hey, you have a right to have an attorney that doesn't have a conflict here. And essentially he agreed to keep Ann Taylor on his team. If there were no conflict at all, then there would be no need for the hearing. Not to mention, when I actually researched the framework here under Idaho's professional rules of attorneys, a conflict of interest isn't just limited to a single lawyer. The rule explicitly states that if one attorney in a public defender's office has a conflict, that conflict automatically spreads to the entire office. Legally, the whole agency is viewed as one single law firm. So, when a subordinate attorney in that office was assigned to represent Kayna Nordington, Xana's mother, that conflict automatically attached to the entire public defender's office, and that includes the person at the very tippity top. Who is that? Ann Taylor. Some might argue they can just build a firewall or a screen between the attorneys to keep the cases separate, but here's the problem. Ann Taylor isn't just another lawyer in the building. She's the chief public defender. She runs the agency, manages the budget, and has oversight over her staff. So, you have to ask yourself, how do you realistically build a firewall against a person who runs the entire office? The conflict is there on paper, and the overlapping representation is a matter of public record. So, yeah, sorry if I get a little annoyed about that, but I get kind of frustrated whenever I see people say like no, that conflict didn't exist, they worked that out. There were all these mainstream media articles saying that Bill Thompson had a problem with it and that it was this big in-house deal, but we never saw him motion to remove Ann off the case, or they didn't disagree in the court minutes that were later published after mainstream media caught wind of the conflict. The only people who seemed to truly object to this were the Gonsalves family, and I could see why they would because it does bring up the ineffective assistance of counsel issue and post-conviction relief. Of course, they believing that Brian Kohberger is guilty didn't want him to have any remedy at all for any such thing, any such appeal, or any such post-conviction relief. I mean, there is some nuance here because, you know, historically Idaho courts have tried to draw a distinction between private law firms and public defender's offices.

[00:06:10]And sometimes declining to automatically impute conflicts to the entire public defender staff if an ethical wall can be built between the attorneys. But my argument is Anne Taylor is the chief attorney there. And again, that it's structurally impossible to build such a wall with the chief public defender.

[00:06:30]That's not even to get into the nuance of whether or not the Supreme Court will uphold this conflict and actually look at relief for the defendant because uh our Supreme Courts are a mess. I mean, they've kind of always been a mess, but like right now they're an extremely hot ass mess. I'd argue much worse than they have been in the past. Now, it is my belief that Anne Taylor was a preferable option for Bill Thompson and his staff because they didn't motion to get rid of this conflict. They were perfectly fine keeping her on. And again, the fact that she's a neighboring county means she's a neighboring player and they wanted to keep this in-house. They wanted to keep this in the panhandle. For those of you who think, "No, it was a different county, so that doesn't exist." Remember when they were trying to get the trial moved and Bill Thompson was fighting back? And in his paperwork, he he suggested several times that if the trial were going to be moved, it should be moved to Nez Perce County or Kootenai County. That was actually one of his preferred counties if the trial were to be moved cuz again, he could keep it in-house. So again, the illusion of distance without an actual separation.

[00:07:40]These prosecutors, they know each other, the judges attend the same conferences, they rely on the same Idaho state police investigators, the same task force, all of these neighboring counties task force work together. They have the same forensic labs. Moving the trial 30 or 80 miles away doesn't break this loop, and that loop is beneficial to the prosecution, not [clears throat] the defendant, which was the whole point of the venue change, right? And these kinds of things are what makes Brent Reavis' claims about the defense team so critical to me. Because it appears that Anne Taylor is actively enforcing something similar inside of her own ranks. With the exception, of course, of Becca Barlo, who was added, and she is actually an out-of-state attorney. When she was offered that bevy of paralegals, which she closed to outright denied, she didn't outright deny it, but she basically said that it wouldn't help practically. And I have to question if for her that means allowing people who are not native to her specific office to see the full scope of the state's evidence and the defense's strategy. By refusing outside help, she can keep air-tight control over what the defense did and did not know. And I saw a lot of discourse over that. People noticed that she denied those paralegals. Even people who are in the what's so-called Gildor camp, who believe BJ did it, of course, they were over there like, "Haha, she's so full of [ __ ] She didn't even take the paralegals that were offered to her." And I mean, as annoying as that is, you know, they're not the only ones who are going to have that discourse, because all of that is going to be on the record and in front of the cameras.

[00:09:10]Like, she's like, "That wouldn't help at this point." Which I, you know, with the nuance, of course, I get what she means.

[00:09:16]Like, sure, it takes a long time to bring those people up to speed, but sometimes having an outside eye can really bring something new to the table that you might need, and something that other people on your team haven't seen.

[00:09:27]And I don't know. It's just another one of those small things on a long list for me, anyway. And as I'll continue to point out, this isn't the only closed loop inside of this whole investigation, because they're plentiful. Remember the coroner Cathy Mabbutt? She's the official who walked the crime scene, pronounced the victims dead, ordered the autopsies. She's a critical link in the chain of custody and a star medical witness for the state, but her day job is a criminal defense attorney. She has contracts right there in Moscow. The official declaring the victims dead for the prosecution is taking public defense contracts in the exact same courthouse.

[00:10:03]The legal pool here is freaking tight, you guys. And another one, of course, that I have to bring up here that I brought up early on was that Julie Fry, the clerk of the court, was actually married to the chief of police at the time, James Fry. And this one was a big one to me, because when you think about the legal system, okay, if the defense needs to do something that they don't want the prosecution to know about, something highly sensitive or a strategic move, they file what's called an ex parte motion. These are filed under seal directly to a judge, and the prosecution is legally barred from seeing them. But who processes those filings? The clerk of the court, Julie Fry. She's the physical and digital gateway between Anne Taylor and the judge. She and her staff have administrative access to these exact documents that the prosecution is supposed to be blind to. But who does she go home to at night? Her husband, the chief of police. So, are they truly blind to them? I don't know, but I think that it leaves some room for doubt. And I mean, these kinds of incestuous relationships between county officials, you know, they're not uncommon, but in these smaller places like this, they can really, really, really get tight. But this isn't some traffic court [ __ ] This is life and death. This was a death penalty case. So, yeah, these things become kind of interesting and a little bit more suspicious. And frankly, in a death penalty case, a little bit more dangerous, right? I also happen to notice in the beginning of this case that eventually the driver who took Maddie and Kaylee home that night, Eric Gower Grower, And then at some point we got the correct name of Gowar. And I was looking through the PDFs from the Moscow Police Department and discovered that there was a Gowar. There was someone with that same last name who actually worked for the police department. Now this sparked other allegations saying she was actually his wife and that his wife worked for the police department.

[00:11:52]I'm not sure if that's true or not because I never actually saw any of the research that linked that and as far as I know they just had the same last name and I put that out there. Now if someone else maybe went and put two and two together, I'm not sure you guys can point me in that direction. But point is there's a very close loop over there guys. And it's my opinion that there is a reason why they couldn't have easily paid another attorney or contracted another attorney who didn't have that conflict. Because why not? Why take the risk? They actually had police going out to meet with Cara Kernodle to clear up the conflict. Like hey, have you actually met her and all of these things because her case was assigned to Anne Taylor's office. And Anne Taylor actually dropped Cara as a client to keep BK. Of course because that was the bigger contract. Of course because there was a monetary motivation to throw Cara's misdemeanor case to the side for this huge death penalty case that's about to line her pocket. Simple as that in my opinion. We also actually saw Anne Taylor fighting alongside Bill Thompson's office against the coalition of media. They both agreed to a gag order in the case and they both fought alongside each other opposing the media for cameras in the courtroom. Of course there's the nuance that Anne did not want her defendant to be tried in the media. And that's fair whatever but in my opinion with a county this dirty, putting them behind the curtain becomes some whole Wizard of Oz [ __ ] because we don't need them behind the curtain. We need the curtain wide open, and the curtain's still half shut on this case.

[00:13:33]Let's go back to the beginning of trial and talk about how the prosecution was actually the one pinned against a ticking clock, and Anne actually let them off the hook. The state was dragging its feet with discovery. We know that they did not have the finalized CAST, which is the Cellular Analysis Survey Team report regarding the vehicle and device locations ready.

[00:13:53]In a capital murder case, the CAST data is the anchor of the state's timeline.

[00:13:57]If the prosecution is not ready, if they don't have their CAST data finalized, a ruthless defense strategy is to refuse to waive the time. You force the state to go to trial with half a deck. The CAST report wasn't done, therefore it doesn't come in. Instead of holding the state's feet to the fire, Anne Taylor folded. Nowadays, people don't even remember that it was the state who wanted more time, the state who needed more time. There was even hearings where Judge John Judge complained about there not being enough time, and he really didn't know how they were going to schedule all of this with the speedy trial clock ticking. He would even look at defense for a moment, and they would just be quiet and say nothing. I wish I could find one of those hearings right off top before I edit this, because I was like, "Wow!" while I was watching this. And we know prosecution wasn't ready yet. Of course, there's a lot of nuance to this. People are going to say, "Okay, but defense wasn't ready either."

[00:14:54]But the point is, defense wouldn't have to be ready for as many things if they would have held the state's feet to the fire. Keeping that clock ticking is a known aggressive defense strategy to weaponize the state's own incompetence against them. We saw this in the Alex Murdaugh case. His defense team explicitly demanded a speedy trial. The state was forced to rush their financial and forensic discovery. It put massive pressure on them, and of course, Murdaugh was convicted, but hey, guess what? It's obvious in the news cycle that their case might not hold up. We saw this issue play out in the Daybell case as well, but that those are whole other matters, right? Especially since I believe both of those are probably as guilty as sin. So, back to the point.

[00:15:37]Whether you agree with her waving speedy trial or not, it was procedurally bizarre the way that it went down. In open court, Anne Taylor explicitly stated that she had not briefed her client on waving his right. The judge pushes the issue, goes to get an Odyssey court management waiver, brings the form there, and then the entire courtroom sat in dead silence while Taylor whispered to Kohberger at the defense table. So, she sits there briefing him at the 11th hour right in front of all of us, and it was so quiet and weird and awkward. And this slipped by a lot of people's notice, and I had to make an episode about it because this was actually just a basic status hearing, but of course it got published as Kohberger waives his right to speedy trial, so all the titles for the videos were like speedy trial waiver. But it was actually just a status hearing originally. The speedy trial clock is a weapon, and the defense here refused to use it. The nuance being that of course many defense attorneys do refuse to use it. And unfortunately, there is a monetary motivation to do so.

[00:16:42]I'm not saying that that's why Anne Taylor did it. I'm just saying that every attorney out there gets more money the more that they can drag a case out.

[00:16:50]And I'm absolutely not saying that every attorney does that. There are good and bad attorneys in this world. And anyone who has worked with attorneys, worked for attorneys, or are attorneys themselves know that this statement is true. There are a lot of bad attorneys.

[00:17:05]They exist, and a lot of public defenders do great work. I'm not knocking all public defenders, but I do believe that it is true that they do get paid from the same side as the state, and everyone knows that if you have the money, you don't want a public defender.

[00:17:20]But, to be for real, guys, most people are going to use a public defender in a murder trial. Why? Because murder trials cost millions of dollars from private attorneys. Millions. I'm not exaggerating. I'm not kidding. That's just the truth of the matter. But, back to the point. That was a status hearing.

[00:17:37]That's the reason that no one had a form filled out, and they had to go and get a basic Odyssey form because prosecution nor the defense didn't have this speedy trial waiver worked out before they got into this status hearing. It sort of came about, and it was odd. It struck me. It came out of nowhere, and I was over here like, what the [ __ ] So, moral of the story, Anne Taylor let prosecution off the hook, and now the story is remembered as Anne Taylor being the one that didn't have enough time, not prosecution. But, honestly, she did ask for stays for the hearings a couple of times. point out that he shouldn't have to choose between his constitutional rights, which were an effective assistance of counsel or a speedy trial. But, as it were, it worked out that he did have to choose between those pivotal constitutional rights. And I know people are going to be mad at me for saying it, but Anne folded on this one, you guys. She folded. Even if it were the plan to waive the right to a speedy trial, it's the way that it happened. So weird. You guys may hear the neighbor's dog barking out here. If you do, I apologize. Now, speaking of other weird things from this case, we have to talk about the stipulation for a tip that led to Kohberger. I'm not just talking about the tip that the police claim the FBI gave them the tip that it might be Kohberger from the alleged family tree that they built out with his DNA. I'm talking about when Anne gets locked out of the IGG and the judge tells them that they're going to come up with some way to tell the jury how the police were led to Coberger. Instead of turning over all of those IGG files in discovery, the prosecution was successful reinventing the IGG as nothing more than a tip. I cannot stress enough that this is one of the most curious things to me about this pre-trial. To understand why this next document is so bizarre, you have to understand how the state actually caught Brian Coberger. They used investigative genetic genealogy or IGG. This is where the FBI takes a DNA sample from a crime scene, uploads it to a public genealogy database, and builds a massive family tree of relatives until they narrow it down to one suspect. In a standard criminal trial, the defense has a constitutional right to see the state's math. They're supposed to get the family trees, the laboratory reports, and the exact digital chain of custody so they can test it to see if the FBI made a mistake. For over a year, the state fought tooth and nail to hide those FBI files from the defense.

[00:20:20]By calling the FBI's genetic testing a tip, the state bypasses the Fourth Amendment. If the defense cannot see exactly how the FBI handled the original genetic data, they cannot challenge it.

[00:20:31]And that's exactly what happened. The state successfully blocked Anne out from that. She only got to see a portion of it in an in camera hearing with the judge. So, she actually didn't receive the data. There was never discovery of the IGG. Therefore, she was unable to drag it out into the courtroom, which is a complicated defense strategy anyway.

[00:20:50]However, she basically didn't have any option for that strategy. So, in comes the stipulation to call the thing a tip.

[00:20:58]Let's talk about why that's [ __ ] bizarre.

[00:21:01]The instruction explicitly tells the jurors, "You are not to consider this testimony for any purpose other than the limited purpose of when and why law enforcement first investigated the defendant. You are not to speculate as to the source or substance of the tip. I don't know what they were smoking to think that that would work or that the jurors wouldn't give in to their own curiosity. You know, it's kind of one of those funny things. Jurors are supposed to listen to all instructions, but we all know that they don't, right? So, this stipulation demands that they ignore their curiosity about the source of the lead that sparked this capital murder investigation.

[00:21:41]So, it legislates curiosity out of the jury box. Get out of here, curiosity.

[00:21:45]You ain't [ __ ] So, they jointly proposed that both sides essentially strip the jury of their right to ask the most important question in the [ __ ] room, how did you actually get the name?

[00:21:57]What the [ __ ] I just don't I can't believe that I just can't believe that they stipulated to this jury instruction, that this was an answer.

[00:22:08]I mean, okay, I get it. They can't bring IGG up because Anne Taylor and her team can't fight anything about the IGG because they're deadlocked. They don't have the information. But, I mean, agreeing to this tip and this concept that the jury is going to ignore their own curiosity is equally as [ __ ] up as them not getting the IGG info in the first place. Obviously, because a jury is told not to speculate on the source of a tip, this means in their mind they're supposed to imagine that this investigation just happens. It's It's an immaculate conception of an investigation, y'all. It creates a narrative where the investigation is infallible because the jury never sees the messy and potentially unconstitutional genetic genealogy search that started it all. They were going to tell the jurors that the investigation started on December 19th, but then they added the kicker, don't speculate about why they were brought to Kohberger on the 19th. They're going to [ __ ] speculate about it. And was bad for the defense as they could speculate something terrible like, oh wow, maybe he told his friend and his friend called in a tip on him. They're going to speculate things that makes him seem more guilty than this weird, complex, and bizarre family tree that ourselves and defense are never going to get to see. And when you strip away all the legal ease, it's an instruction designed to do one thing, keep the jury from seeing the shadow methods used to build this case. And the investigations foundations were going to remain invisible and unquestioned and completely beyond the jury's reach. And everyone's like, why would he take the plea deal? Why wouldn't you just risk the [ __ ] firing squad? But that alt suspect ruling really crippled the [ __ ] out of defense. I mean, really crippled them. That was going to make it extremely hard to argue the tunnel vision and that law enforcement focused on Brian Kohberger to the detriment of other suspects. I mean, that coupled with the fact that they were now going to sanitize the entire investigation by calling the IGG evidence a tip, that was really going to make the prosecution's version of things much more streamline.

[00:24:14]I mean, yeah, they were cooked. I mean, it did come down as an order from the judge, but defense should have fought it. They should have fought that. There is no way that they shouldn't have fought that. All right, let's talk about the 911 call because defense really shot themselves in the foot here. The defense fought hard to get the 911 call thrown out under hearsay rules and the prosecution wanted the entire thing played before the jury. And they did partially win some of their motion and the judge agreed to strip out specific lines, but what got left on the cutting room floor is the problem. Okay, the parts that got redacted were some of the most suspicious moments of the entire call. The jury wouldn't hear the weird, something happened in our house comment or the uh-huh >> [laughter and gasps] >> uh-huh. Yeah, they're going to not hear that completely fake cry. You guys, when I heard that cry, oh my god. Okay, let's get to language here, right? It is my opinion that that was the fakest cry. It was I I was mind-blown. I Okay, you guys remember how long we waited to hear that 911 call? Whenever I Oh my god, I couldn't even get past that part. I put I had to pause and just rewind and pause and rewind and I was floored. I was shocked by how fake the sounded. It was horrible. I mean, okay, everybody on the Idaho 4 sub and people who think that BK is guilty, sure they were like, "Oh, how sad that was." But I don't know. I just would have wanted that played in front of the jury, especially if some of it was going to be played, play all of it. We definitely need that part in there. As the defense team, your entire job is to create reasonable doubt and baby, you got it.

[00:25:52]You got it. You had it right there. You want the jury looking at anyone, anyone else.

[00:25:58]You want the jury to hear the surviving roommate sounding bizarre, performative and suspicious. Can I just tell you what happened at 4:00 a.m.? That audio is prime material to make the jury question the surviving roommate's actions that morning. Instead of letting the jury hear how strange that call actually was, the defense used hearsay rules to get it redacted. They essentially cleaned up the state's witnesses. Okay, let's talk about M Asat. There were times where I really enjoyed her style and she was a little bit less, you know, tiptoe-y, I guess you could say. Like she She had a lot more sass and I did like that about her, but OMG, keep that for your emotions. Like sometimes she really shocked me in the courtroom how much stank she would put on something she was saying to the judge. And speaking of stank, she kind of always had this face on her, you know, like she did not have a poker face at all and she was kind of always sitting there sort of making this smirk or something. Now, full disclosure, okay? I could never go and do what they do. I could not stand up there and argue. I'm one of those people that I would honestly probably lose my temper more than she did. But that's why I'm not a courtroom litigator. I'm strictly back here working on the paperwork, okay? Cuz yeah, I couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. So, full disclosure with that. Okay, now let's talk about the traffic stop body cam and how Anne Taylor's attempt to block that evidence actually created a worse problem for the defense. The prosecution wanted to introduce the body cam footage of Brian getting pulled over. Anne Taylor argued against showing it. Her argument sort of made perfect sense if you think about it because why would the state need to show the random traffic stop to the jury? But the prosecution claimed they needed it for one reason. They argued they needed it to positively identify Brian as himself. Okay, because the defense fought that footage, the plan became to redact it. So, the jury was only going to see the portion where police are positively identifying him, and the rest of the interaction gets cut out. But this is where the defense accidentally shot themselves, right? Because if you look at the unredacted stop, it's completely mundane, so [clears throat] innocuous. It was a simple seatbelt ticket. Brian is actually honest about what he had done. He later asked why the cop needed his number, and he asked some procedural questions about the stop, which is actually something we've seen him do before. It's not overly suspicious, though. It's just a guy getting a traffic infraction. But because the video is being redacted down to just the identification, the jury won't just be seeing this boring seatbelt ticket. They'll just see a chopped up clip of a murder suspect being pulled over by police. When you redact the actual reason for the stop, you leave the rest up to speculation. If you're the jury, you're going to fill in that blank space. They'll assume he was pulled over for something sinister. By fighting to hide the basic traffic ticket, the defense accidentally turned a harmless interaction [clears throat] into this dark mystery. Ugh, that sucks so bad. So, in Brent Turvey's interview with Custody Queens, shout out Custody Queens for their excellent interview of Dr. Turvey, Turvey pointed out exactly who has access to Brian and Jill, and it's obviously Ann and his parents. So, you need to look at the psychology of that isolation. We have [clears throat] a defendant who's locked in a cell facing the death penalty, and their entire reality is shaped by the people that he's allowed access to. He has zero outside perspective. So, who makes up the echo chamber? You have Ann Taylor controlling the legal narrative, then you have his parents who are undoubtedly terrified that their son's going to be executed. If the defense team decides to get him to take this plea deal, and it's the safest route, Brian is trapped in an information vacuum. He does not have independent counsel to review the strategy. He does not have outside experts sitting down with him to explain the flaws in the state's evidence. And I believe this level of isolation should completely change how you view the plea deal. When you're cut off from the world, and the only voices that you hear are attorneys who want you to avoid a trial and parents who want to save your life, I think the pressure to fold is immense. And it does force us to question if the plea was a calculated decision or an inevitable result of being worn down in a legal echo chamber.

[00:30:08]Now, this is really hard to explain to people because they say, "I would never plead guilty to something that I didn't do." And so many of us have sat there and said that and have changed our minds once we are actually shaken down by the system. And I cannot explain to you the intense psychological deprivation happening from being locked in a county jail for two years. Two years. County jail is not meant for a person to serve that kind of time. And prison, I guarantee you, came as an immense relief to someone who's been sitting in county for two years. I could do a whole episode on this because seriously, you guys seriously, people don't understand.

[00:30:51]County jail is designed to break people.

[00:30:54]Now, I want us to really question the fact that Turvey also mentioned in that same interview that Anne actually asked him to meet Brian. She asked him to meet Brian according to him to convince him of Brian's innocence, to which he said that his innocence does not matter to him. His innocence is besides the point and he wanted to remain objective and never did meet Brian. However, I have to ask myself and you guys, if she wanted him to meet Brian to convince him that Brian was innocent, how exactly would that be conveyed? And doesn't have to do with Brian's general disposition? And is it because he has certain cognitive challenges? It's no secret that she has put that in the paperwork. She said that Brian has such a strange effect that whenever he was arrested by officers, he asked them about their education from the back of the police cruiser and suggested that after all of this, they may go and get coffee, that that was how I said that like I'm a northerner, coffee. He asked him to get coffee. No, seriously, if that's the kind of questions he's asking, we do seriously have to wonder about the way that he comes off. And I've honestly wondered about this so much. I mean, we can tell.

[00:32:09]I don't mean to be mean, but we can tell that he does sort of have a strangeness about him. That's not bad, right? We don't need people to all be the same.

[00:32:17]And I have autistic loved ones and I don't want them to be the same and I don't want them to be any different than they are. But to people who don't understand, it could cause a lot of misconceptions about Brian as a human being and certainly complicate putting Brian on the stand. And according to Anne Taylor, his challenges made it difficult for him to participate in his own defense. I repeat, Ann Taylor said that Brian is incapable of participating in his own defense. Was this something that she expected Dr. Turvey to be able to easily observe and therefore extend to the possibility that he did not commit these crimes? Because I've often wondered, is this why they are hiding the interview that they conducted in Pennsylvania? Because they do not want that interview out. There is a lawsuit in court right now where Ewu is attempting to make that video public and they are fighting it tooth and nail.

[00:33:17]Well, I say tooth and nail. So far all they've done is try to point out that Ewu has no right to sue for it and haven't actually put forth any real argument as to why they should be withholding it, but I digress. Point is, I'm speculating here, but I do wonder if it could come down to Brian's cognitive challenges. The defense has already pointed out that he needed a massive amount of assistance to get through school. He had learning assistance, he had speech therapy when he was younger.

[00:33:44]People point to his degrees. He did not get those degrees without significant accommodations, at least in his younger life. So, if you take someone with severe spectrum and processing challenges and put them in a high-stress police interrogations, it could be a recipe for disaster. The police know exactly how to manipulate those communication hurdles. And I believe this footage could be being hidden because it makes his cognitive struggles highly apparent. This could connect directly to why Ann Taylor wanted Brent Turvey to meet Brian. And if Brian is struggling to process the reality of his situation due to his cognitive state and is dealing with a client who is uniquely vulnerable, he might be easily confused, easily overwhelmed, unable to accurately process the state's narrative. If Brian were just a run of the mill calculated killer, sitting in a room with Brent Turvey would not convince him of anything. A guy like Turvey does not get manipulated by standard criminals. So, why would a face-to-face meeting matter?

[00:34:45]Maybe Anne knew that if Brent sat down with him, he wouldn't see a criminal mastermind the media had created. Maybe he would see an individual with severe cognitive and social challenges, and seeing those deficits in person could maybe convince any expert that Bryan simply does not fit the profile of the person who committed this crime. It's all speculative, hey, just some thoughts I have. Either way, Turvey said it didn't matter to him and he wanted to remain objective, so he never actually met Bryan. Turvey also said a lot more interesting things such as the state looking into Anne Taylor as a suspect for the leak, which seems insanely odd because none of that alleged leak could have possibly helped her defendant. And I suppose the only motive you could argue for it being her was to delay the trial more because she did use that documentary, as well as some of the books coming out, as her reasoning for said delay. But, I think that part seemed to piss a lot of people off because there seems to be a large majority of people even in the BK innocent camp that are really trying to go against Turvey, and that has really actually surprised me. Again, you don't have to take everything he says as the gold standard, but I think he seems to be someone who was attempting to do the right thing. And let's be clear here, in Anne's statement against him, she never said Brent was lying. Never. Not once did she say what he is saying is not true. And Dr. Turvey was saying everything he's talked about is already on the public record, and that he never broke his NDA. Even if he did, and he believes he's doing it for the right reason and because Anne Taylor may or may not be on Bryan Kohberger's team, then I think it's a good thing. And I think it's weird that so many people in the BK is innocent camp are coming after Dr. Turvey.

[00:36:33]I really don't see what his motive would be if it weren't a noble one. I I really genuinely don't understand why he would be coming out and saying these things if it weren't for the reasons that he's stating. Because he believes, in my opinion, he believes that Brian may be factually innocent. And it's my opinion that he also believes that Ann Taylor may not be the attorney that Brian needs. And he also says that he anticipates being a witness for Ann's ineffectiveness if that ever comes to be. I applaud him for that. I I really do. And we can look at all of these things and conclude that Ann was struck by an overwhelming amount of legal challenges. But we also have to acknowledge the other possibility. Ann Taylor operates inside a very tight, insular legal system in Idaho. It's a classic good old boys club. If she was actually just playing her role in that club, how would we even know? If her actual job was to quietly cooperate, protect the state's investigative secrets with joint stipulations, and ensure this case moved through the system without exposing the cracks, what would that look like? The terrifying reality is that we would hardly be able to tell the difference. A defense attorney who is genuinely fighting but getting legally steamrolled by a biased system looks exactly the same on paper as a defense attorney who is quietly playing along to maintain her standing in that same system. Both scenarios result in the exact same outcome. The DNA science gets hidden under the word tip, the alternative suspects get silenced, the 911 calls get sanitized, and a uniquely vulnerable defendant gets completely boxed into a corner.

[00:38:24]>> [music] [music]